Objectionable Decision Act Proposal - Suggestion

Nomad wrote:sen rep can make a vote in which senators will wote about kicking current DL outta his position.

the way i understand it is thats a council vote not a senate a complete agreement of the council can remove the DL

Disturbed wrote:[color=darkred]I really don't think there should be any position or rank within the clan where someone can simply run around doing whatever suits him/her at the cost of others. Yes leadership positions should hold power, but not absolute power, and there should be some sense of responsibility. Whether this be GM, DL or Chancellor, their decisions need to have some kind of logic behind them that is acceptable to the clan.

Disturbed wrote:
For that reason I propose an objectionable decision act where:

One or more person sees a decision as wrong or inappropriate (no not a decision that he simply does not like, there must be proof that the decision goes against a rule or injures someone else's rank, position, reputation (not rep points) or feelings for no good reason). If an objection arises then it should be allowed to put to vote in either council or senate for a repeal. The objection should be PM'ed to senator or councilor of choice. If a topic is made about it in public then the objection is to be automatically rejected. However, the authority involved in passing said decision should post his sound reasoning in public AFTER he has discussed it with head of council or senate representative. If his decision was based on sensitive information then it may remain private. The definition of sensitive is at the sole discretion of the head councillor or the senate representative.

Proposal wrote:The Senate will hereby have the power to vote on an issue, should a member of the Alliance Council use his powers in a way as to be considered objectionable. If a Senator feels that an action by the Chancellor, Prime Minister, Senate Representative, Dark Lord, or Grand Master, is unreasonable for any reason, then he may call a vote. Before the actual vote, both the Senator and the Alliance Councilor in question will provide reasons to support their actions and sway the Senate in their favor. After two days of this "case making" a vote will be called to decide whether the Councilor's actions were justified, or if they were uncalled for. Should it be decided that the Councilor was wrong, then the decision will be overturned. Should a Councilor be vindicated all will remain the same. The issue will stand with the Councilor's decision unless or until their decision is overturned. The "case making" voting will take place in the Senate, and will involve only the Senate.

Should a Senator call too many of these votes in a short period of time(i.e. 3 or more in less then 6 weeks) and be proven wrong each time, disciplinary action will be taken against them for disruption. This punishment can range anywhere from a 24-hour forum ban to a month's suspension of Senate duties, depending on the severity of the issue and the frequency of the challenges.